G.R. No. 53907 - Modern Fishing Gear Labor Union vs. Noriel

This case is a petition for certiorari challenging two main orders of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR):

The order directing the holding of a certification election among the regular rank and file employees of Modern Fishing Gear Development Corporation (the Company).
The order withdrawing the certification of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that had been forged between the Company and a union.

An agreement was reached between the Modern Fishing Gear Workers Union and the Modern Fishing Gear Labor Union regarding the conduct of a consent election.
The agreement anticipated that upon registration of the unions, a consent election within the bargaining unit would be held, which would then allow either union to formally initiate the petition for certification election.

On May 30, 1979, a registered letter was sent to the Company’s General Manager, informing him of the consent election agreement.
On June 1, 1979, the petitioner filed a petition for a certification election, arguing:

A consensus had been reached for a consent election.
There was no existing CBA with the Company.
No certification election had been held within the past twelve months for the Company’s approximately 114 regular employees.

On the same day, a collective agreement between the intervenor (Modern Fishing Gear Labor Union) and the Company was submitted for certification.

A summons was issued on June 28, 1979, requiring the Company to produce its May 1979 payroll.
Multiple postponements occurred during subsequent hearings, initiated by the Company.
On July 26, 1979, the BLR certified the collective agreement between the intervenor and the Company.
On August 9, 1979, the Company filed an answer suggesting that a CBA had already been concluded and ratified with the Modern Fishing Gear Labor Union, thus invoking the contract-bar rule as a basis to discard the petition.

Allegations arose concerning possible irregular dismissals of 78 union members between April 10 and August 13, 1979, with charges of illegal dismissal pending before the National Capital Region.
On August 27, 1979, the petitioner contested the hastily prepared CBA and questioned the applicability of the contract-bar rule, leading to a petition for decertification filed on August 14, 1979.
The BLR, through its Resolution dated October 29, 1979, ordered the decertification of the CBA.
A Med-Arbiter later dismissed the petition for certification election on the basis of the contract-bar rule as embodied in Sections 1 and 2, Rule III of P.D. 1391.

On November 22, 1979, the Modern Fishing Gear Workers Union filed an appeal against the Med-Arbiter’s dismissal.
Various procedural contentions emerged:

The petitioner raised objections regarding the mode and timeliness of service of the appeal by the respondent union.
The intervenor argued that failure to file the appeal with the Regional Office (as mandated by Section 8, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules) and failure to serve the petitioner within ten working days rendered the appeal defective.
The Company and the intervenor contested the claim, emphasizing that the BLR’s inherent power includes both the certification and the withdrawal of certification of a collective agreement without affecting its validity.

The BLR issued a decision affirming the Resolution of October 29, 1979, thereby decertifying the CBA and ordering the holding of a certification election with the following options:

The BLR found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate actual and substantial prejudice due to delay, and it maintained that its jurisdiction to entertain the appeal was proper despite technical lapses in service.

Whether the non-compliance with the prescribed appeal procedure from a Med-Arbiter’s decision—specifically, the filing and service requirements—constitutes a mere technical defect or represents a jurisdictional error that would invalidate the BLR’s decision.
Whether the respondent union’s failure to file its appeal with the Regional Office and to timely serve a copy of the appeal on the petitioner affects the jurisdiction of the BLR to decide on the appeal.
Whether any alleged delay in the service of the appeal denied the petitioner union actual and substantial prejudice, thereby warranting the dismissal of the appeal.
Whether the decertification of the CBA by the BLR, premised on misrepresentation of the suspensive condition (i.e., the pending petition for certification election), can be sustained given the subsequent appeal process and raised technical contentions.